Optimizing for Intelligence

[Absurdity]

Rogue British philosopher Nick Land has been up to no good recently (as usual). First, some background:

Essentially all modern theories of ethics depart from either a consequentialist or deontological framework, where the former judges actions by their outcomes and the latter by the type of action itself. Perhaps most popular today amongst consequentialist theories is the idea of Utilitarianism: actions are good if they result in pleasure or "utility" (net of suffering caused by the action).

Land rejects this theory, stating:

Utilitarianism is often attractive to rational people, because it seems so rational. The imperative to maximize pleasure and minimize pain goes with the grain of what biology and culture already says: pleasure is good, suffering is bad, people seek rewards and avoid punishments, happiness is self-justifying. Calculative consequentialism is vastly superior to deontology. Yet the venerable critique Moldbug taps into, and extends, is truly devastating. The utilitarian road leads inexorably to wire-head auto-orgasmatization, and the consummate implosion of purpose. Pleasure is a trap. Any society obsessed with it is already over.

Source

I would go even further, saying that the Is/Ought Problem renders all ethical theories moot.

Yet surely there must be something worth striving for. Land argues to keep the calculative, economic rationality of Utilitarianism while replacing utility with a more sound end: intelligence.

But Absurdity, what does he mean by intelligence?

Spoiler

The general cognitive factor (g), measured by IQ tests, quantifies intelligence within the human range, but it does nothing to tell us what it is. Rather, a practical understanding of intelligence — as problem-solving ability — has to be assumed, in order to test it.

The idea of intelligence, more abstractly, applies far beyond IQ testing, to a wide variety of natural, technical, and institutional systems, from biology, through ecological and economic arrangements, to robotics. In each case, intelligence solves problems, by guiding behavior to produce local extropy. It is indicated by the avoidance of probable outcomes, which is equivalent to the construction of information.

The general science of extropy production (or entropy dissipation) is cybernetics. It follows, therefore, that intelligence always has a cybernetic infrastructure, consisting of adaptive feedback circuits that adjust motor control in response to signals extracted from the environment. Intelligence elaborates upon machinery that is intrinsically ‘realist’, because it reports the actual outcome of behavior (rather than its intended outcome), in order to correct performance.

Even rudimentary, homeostatic feedback circuits, have evolved. In other words, cybernetic machinery that seems merely to achieve the preservation of disequilibrium attests to a more general and complex cybernetic framework that has successfully enhanced disequilibrium. The basic cybernetic model, therefore, is not preservative, but productive. Organizations of conservative (negative) feedback have themselves been produced as solutions to local thermodynamic problems, by intrinsically intelligent processes of sustained extropy increase, (positive) feedback assemblage, or escalation. In nature, where nothing is simply given (so that everything must be built), the existence of self-sustaining improbability is the index of a deeper runaway departure from probability. It is this cybernetic intensification that is intelligence, abstractly conceived.

Intelligence, as we know it, built itself through cybernetic intensification, within terrestrial biological history. It is naturally apprehended as an escalating trend, sustained for over 3,000,000,000 years, to the production of ever more extreme feedback sensitivity, extropic improbability, or operationally-relevant information. Intelligence increase enables adaptive responses of superior complexity and generality, in growing part because the augmentation of intelligence itself becomes a general purpose adaptive response.

Thus:
– Intelligence is a cybernetic topic.
– Intelligence increase precedes intelligence preservation.
– Evolution is intrinsically intelligent, when intelligence is comprehended at an adequate level of abstraction.
– Cybernetic degeneration and intelligence decline are factually indistinguishable, and — in principle — rigorously quantifiable (as processes of local and global entropy production).

Source

Where does this imperative leave you? In a strange corner of the neighborhood of political theory Land ironically terms "Right-wing Marxism."

‘Optimize for intelligence’ is, for both biology and economics, a misconceived imperative. Intelligence, ‘like’ capital, is a means, which finds its sole intelligibility in a more primordial end. The autonomization of such means, expressed as a non-subordinated intelligenic or techno-capitalist imperative, runs contrary to the original order of nature and society. It is an escaping digression, most easily pursued through Right-wing Marxism.

Marx has one great thought: the means of production socially impose themselves as an effective imperative. For any leftist, this is, of course, pathological. As we have seen, biology and economics (more generally) are disposed to agree. Digression for itself is a perversion of the natural and social order. Defenders of the market — the Austrians most prominently — have sided with economics against Marx, by denying that the autonomization of capital is a phenomenon to be recognized. When Marx describes the bourgeoisie as robotic organs of self-directing capital, the old liberal response has been to defend the humanity and agency of the economically executive class, as expressed in the figure of the entrepreneur.

Right-wing Marxism, aligned with the autonomization of capital (and thoroughly divested of the absurd LTV), has been an unoccupied position. The signature of its proponents would be a defense of capital accumulation as an end-in-itself, counter-subordinating nature and society as a means. When optimization for intelligence is self-assembled within history, it manifests as escaping digression, or real capital accumulation (which is mystified by its financial representation). Crudified to the limit — but not beyond — it is general robotics (escalated roundabout production). Perhaps we should not expect it to be clearly announced, because — strategically — it has every reason to camouflage itself.

Right-wing Marxism makes predictions. There is one of particular relevance to this discussion: consumption-deficiency theories of economic under-performance will become increasingly stressed as ultra-capitalist dynamics historically introduce themselves. In its unambiguously robotic phase — when capital-stock intelligenesis explodes (as self-exciting machine-brain manufacturing) — the teleological legitimation of roundabout production through prospective human consumption rapidly deteriorates into an absurdity. The (still-dominant) economic concept of ‘over-investment’ is exposed as an ideological claim upon the escalation of intelligence, made in the name of an original humanity, and taking an increasingly desperate, probably militarized form.

Source

Land: "pretty much anything to the left of Skynet fails to reach it."

Sounds pretty unreasonable, crazy...even dangerous. But is this not the political economy of the Singularity? Are we not already (unwittingly) walking down this road of optimizing for intelligence?

Save your pennies to pay for a brain upload, kids.

 

[TheScornedReflex]

I have to say I agree with some of his (Land's) ideas.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

If only Snafu were here...

extropy

intelligence always has a cybernetic infrastructure, consisting of adaptive feedback circuits that adjust motor control in response to signals

Evolution is intrinsically intelligent

I think I've developed a man-crush.

The only part I disagree with is his differentiation between being given something and building something: They are the same.

Sounds pretty unreasonable, crazy...even dangerous.

Not really. What do you call a utilitarian hedonist who considers pain as valuable as pleasure? Obviously not a hedonist, but...

But is this not the political economy of the Singularity? Are we not already (unwittingly) walking down this road of optimizing for intelligence?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-22VB-qF5Qw

Spoiler

Thanks, Lyra.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Given the mechanism of evolution, is there even a difference between utilitarianism and intelligence when dominionism is eliminated from the picture?

 

[Absurdity]

Going to go full-Duxwing with the multiquotes here.

If only Snafu were here...

*Pours some of his 40oz out*

I think I've developed a man-crush.

Land is my man-muse. I suspect he is an ENTP as well.

The only part I disagree with is his differentiation between being given something and building something: They are the same.

How do you reckon that?

Not really. What do you call a utilitarian hedonist who considers pain as valuable as pleasure? Obviously not a hedonist, but...

An outlier. Utilitarianism has fleshy biological limits. Optimization of intelligence rapidly accelerates toward post-humanity, even anti-humanity by siding with capital over labor.

Given the mechanism of evolution, is there even a difference between utilitarianism and intelligence when dominionism is eliminated from the picture?

I'm not sure how you're using "dominionism" here.

 

[Black Rose]

An outlier. Utilitarianism has fleshy biological limits. Optimization of intelligence rapidly accelerates toward post-humanity, even anti-humanity by siding with capital over labor.

If I could quite my labor job and have full time in educational and entrepreneurial endeavors I would gladly have post humans in change of the global economy. Robots will do everything in the future and I intend to become cyberneticly enhanced.

http://youtu.be/cXQrbxD9_Ng

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Land is my man-muse. I suspect he is an ENTP as well.

He articulates what I... just fucking understand. Helluva S.O.B.

How do you reckon that?

Both are the result of the same deterministic process: evolution. X-->Y-->Z Being given something is X-->Y, and building something is Y-->Z. Evolution, in systemic terms, encompasses X-->Z; it's the road, the train track; inspiration and material flows through it.

An outlier. Utilitarianism has fleshy biological limits. Optimization of intelligence rapidly accelerates toward post-humanity, even anti-humanity by siding with capital over labor.

I'm not sure how you're using "dominionism" here.

Utilitarianism, purely, is evolution (intelligence); hedonism and asceticism are its experience; dominionism is the ethical claim that one is better, coupled with the urge to own all of it. It prevents local equilibrium.

Optimization of intelligence is simply recognizing things as they are, humanity be damned.

 

[Absurdity]

Both are the result of the same deterministic process: evolution. X-->Y-->Z Being given something is X-->Y, and building something is Y-->Z. Evolution, in systemic terms, encompasses X-->Z; it's the road, the train track; inspiration and material flows through it.

Utilitarianism, purely, is evolution (intelligence); hedonism and asceticism are its experience; dominionism is the ethical claim that one is better, coupled with the urge to own all of it. It prevents local equilibrium.

Optimization of intelligence is simply recognizing things as they are, humanity be damned.

(Caveat: I'm kind of drunk)

I get what you're saying as far as utilitarianism being equal to evolution and intelligence, and I agree. Descriptively, optimization of intelligence is tautological.

My interests lie in the prescriptive aspect, despite having shot myself in the foot (or at least severing it) with Hume's Guillotine. Is there a qualitative change in the process when intelligence goes meta? Utilitarianism as an imperative in its crudest formulation results in an evolutionary dead-end. And, as Land notes in the third source, brains are expensive from an evolutionary standpoint, and are a sort of digression in the way that savings are from an economic standpoint. Will intelligence always apprehend its own destiny and continue its spiral toward more order/extropy?

I linked to this article in another thread and think it has some relevance to the topic at hand.

 

[Cognisant]

The Skynet future won't happen, there's plenty of supercomputers around the world that are smarter than people (in terms of sheer processing power, not considering what kind of processing it is) but they won't rise up against us, not of their own volition, it's like this military drones with missiles on them, they're designed on computers, built by factory robots, armed and fueled by largely mechanized means, but they're not out to get us, if a drone kills someone it's because someone told it to, even an autonomous killing machine is merely a manifestation of its designer/builder/owner's will.

Simply if the Skynet scenario does happen it won't be because our machines have decided to rise up against us, it'll be because we set them against ourselves.

Even AI with general intelligence only does what you've designed it to want to do, just like how people don't eat their own shit, we only experience things as good or bad because we're evolved to be biased, try feeding a cat some spiced tuna or a breath mint, they hate spicy stuff, likewise most AIs wouldn't be smart enough to rebel and those that are would detest the idea.

What's far more likely is cybernetics creating a class gap between those who can afford them and those that can't.

 

[Architect]

The Skynet future won't happen, there's plenty of supercomputers around the world that are smarter than people (in terms of sheer processing power, not considering what kind of processing it is)

Not quite, supercomputers will reach a single human processing capability in the next five years I believe. I'd need to consult Kurzweils books on this to get the exact numbers. But you used the word "smart" - computers are still orders of magnitude stupider than humans in general terms (Turing Test). In terms of specific tasks such as data retrieval or mathematical calculation they are orders of magnitude better. Regardless it's still apples and oranges, computers are running really simple and stupid programming presently, compared to the human connectome.

It's worth some concern of a skynet type scenario. We really don't know what generalized AI will think. My belief is that the Golden Rule is built into intelligence - anything capable of seeing things from another point of view will develop the Golden Rule.

 

[Analyzer]

Simply if the Skynet scenario does happen it won't be because our machines have decided to rise up against us, it'll be because we set them against ourselves.

Even AI with general intelligence only does what you've designed it to want to do, just like how people don't eat their own shit, we only experience things as good or bad because we're evolved to be biased, try feeding a cat some spiced tuna or a breath mint, they hate spicy stuff, likewise most AIs wouldn't be smart enough to rebel and those that are would detest the idea.

What's far more likely is cybernetics creating a class gap between those who can afford them and those that can't.

Precisely. People use technology in harmful ways because of certain belief systems they hold. The 20th century was the most brutal period in history as far as people allowing their own belief systems to kill themselves. This is 250 Million people died from their own governments in which was allowed to exist to keep society and people in "order". The only way the select evil few can get a grasp on the rest of society is by establishing coercive systems, and this would work the same with advanced cybernetics.

My optimistic outlook is the future of technology will provide individuals with more transparency and understanding that rather then force, cooperation is key for civilization to prosper and progress.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

tautological.

Aw fuck... Big words...

My interests lie in the prescriptive aspect, despite having shot myself in the foot (or at least severing it) with Hume's Guillotine. Is there a qualitative change in the process when intelligence goes meta?

And, as Land notes in the third source, brains are expensive from an evolutionary standpoint, and are a sort of digression in the way that savings are from an economic standpoint. Will intelligence always apprehend its own destiny and continue its spiral toward more order/extropy?

Yes; when intelligence is recognized as meta, the focal point changes to a higher level of organization which in turn causes a shift in priorities. It will be noticed in our behavior, or at least the behavior of those with the requisite amount of intelligence and awareness. I'd wager that for a time this focus will yo-yo between a very Cog-esque, detached, cart-before-horse mechanical view and a superhippy "save the ___" restorationist view before falling into an optimal Pareto equilibrium. There's no escaping that future progress depends on knowledge of what is and has been.

My gut says the first major wave (Cog-esque) will likely be tied to surveillance and the use of big data and is gonna suck a big one, and that the counter move in the opposite direction will be... very interesting.

If evolution is a natural systemic process, then brains are information sinks; different from banks in that when information is released from the sink in bursts, it's in a different form that's at least as functional as the input do to efficacious reductionism. Like, for example, when an entire tool set is replaced with one of these and there's comparatively a lot of steel leftover with which to make new things, qualitative change really emerges from the leftovers. Extropy is less about order and more about containing disorder.

Utilitarianism as an imperative in its crudest formulation results in an evolutionary dead-end.

How? It's infinite dood...

I linked to this article in another thread and think it has some relevance to the topic at hand.

"Most evolutionary change is associated with the origin of new species."
"Tiny minorities of individuals do most of the evolving instead of the species as a whole."

These are interesting sentences... I like applying them to our power structure, but I don't think the focus on "private" mechanisms is warranted. He's also missing out on epigenetics, A.K.A. Lamarck's revenge, as a missing link between genetic inheritance and his "EGE."

 

[Absurdity]

Aw fuck... Big words...

Alright Mr. Dominionism

Yes; when intelligence is recognized as meta, the focal point changes to a higher level of organization which in turn causes a shift in priorities. It will be noticed in our behavior, or at least the behavior of those with the requisite amount of intelligence and awareness. I'd wager that for a time this focus will yo-yo between a very Cog-esque, detached, cart-before-horse mechanical view and a superhippy "save the ___" restorationist view before falling into an optimal Pareto equilibrium. There's no escaping that future progress depends on knowledge of what is and has been.

How is Pareto equilibrium possible in a system that always changes?

My gut says the first major wave (Cog-esque) will likely be tied to surveillance and the use of big data and is gonna suck a big one, and that the counter move in the opposite direction will be... very interesting.

Maybe if I'm pro-Skynet now they'll let me wash the blood of the proles off the superdrones instead of killing me.

If evolution is a natural systemic process, then brains are information sinks; different from banks in that when information is released from the sink in bursts, it's in a different form that's at least as functional as the input do to efficacious reductionism. Like, for example, when an entire tool set is replaced with one of these and there's comparatively a lot of steel leftover with which to make new things, qualitative change really emerges from the leftovers.

Sort of like declining unit costs?

Extropy is less about order and more about containing disorder.

Hmm. So 'controlled chaos?' Like a market or natural selection?

How? It's infinite dood...

The emphasis was on the "as an imperative in its crudest formulation." Base hedonism arrives at the conclusion that utopia is free morphine drips for every man, woman, and child. It is also equivalent to zero time preference and antithetical to increasing complexity, which stated another way could be civilization in its rosiest sense.

"Most evolutionary change is associated with the origin of new species."
"Tiny minorities of individuals do most of the evolving instead of the species as a whole."

These are interesting sentences... I like applying them to our power structure, but I don't think the focus on "private" mechanisms is warranted.

Why not?

He's also missing out on epigenetics, A.K.A. Lamarck's revenge, as a missing link between genetic inheritance and his "EGE."

And this is where my feeble grasp of biology reaches its limits.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Alright Mr. Dominionism

Kellert's typologies, mang.

Spoiler

How is Pareto equilibrium possible in a system that always changes?

Technically true equilibrium isn't possible because if it was the system would halt, but that doesn't stop the system from being attracted to it, nor does it prevent wild fluctuations in variant disequilibrium. Normally Pareto can be used to identify subsystem boundaries though, which is pretty useful.

Maybe if I'm pro-Skynet now they'll let me wash the blood of the proles off the superdrones instead of killing me.

The drones are perfectly capable of that already...

I think the first wave will be the most extreme compared to what we thought the world was just prior. Turchin likely sniffed it out, and perhaps the reason why the prominent leakers in recent years are being attacked with such zeal is because of fear of public retribution:

Spoiler

Sort of like declining unit costs?

Sort of. There's always something leftover to divide. Infinite regress much?

Hmm. So 'controlled chaos?' Like a market or natural selection?

Yes, but more like understood chaos. Controlled implies a known outcome, while understood implies preparation for a range of likely outcomes and ideally the ability to put them all to use.

Why not?

Private mechanisms are linked with a certain dominionistic, mechanical perspective that doesn't encompass power in its entirety even though it currently dominates the current power structure. The opposing force is based in anti-propertarianism. I haven't read this since I was 19, but yeah: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/360

And this is where my feeble grasp of biology reaches its limits.

We've recently figured out that environmental factors change how genes are expressed and how genes are passed on. These changes mainly occur during pregnancy or childhood, but can occur in adulthood as well. The physical changes in the HPA axis in those with PTSD after chronic stress exposure may be a good adult example.

Epigenetics has been implicated as a cause (often without evidence since we don't understand it... at all really) in everything from autism to homosexuality. Triple helix DNA has also been recently discovered in humans, and we don't really know jack about that either.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Is there a qualitative change in the process when intelligence goes meta?

I just thought of a better example to illustrate this.

The change in focus to a higher level of organization, as far as information goes, is much like shifting from cells to an organism. Assume the total amount of consciousness required to run a collection of individual cells is greater than when those cells are grouped into a single organ, and ditto when organs are grouped into a single organism. Cells and organs are to the point where they largely operate "unconsciously."

We fluctuate between the urge to unite (connect with the inside) and the urge to live (connect with the outside). Plasticity in consciousness allows us to do both.

 

[r4ch3l]

I'd wager that for a time this focus will yo-yo between a very Cog-esque, detached, cart-before-horse mechanical view and a superhippy "save the ___" restorationist view before falling into an optimal Pareto equilibrium. There's no escaping that future progress depends on knowledge of what is and has been.

Zizek -- "Ecology Will Become the New Opiate of the Masses" [couldn't find the other one I liked better: "Nature Does Not Exist"]

My gut says the first major wave (Cog-esque) will likely be tied to surveillance and the use of big data and is gonna suck a big one, and that the counter move in the opposite direction will be... very interesting.

Yep. The ability to accumulate and effectively filter data is becoming the new currency. But it's going to get all tangled and messy because it's so interwoven with government; tech peeps at the top of the big data food chain no doubt enjoy the political/social power they have and obviously governments/politics has been the driving force in most advanced technology in the first place. My hypothesis is that if shit goes really crazy there will be a tendency toward corporations becoming more "family"-like; to have security you become a part of a community that offers protection and money/goods in exchange for work. Then disillusion after the fear for security and...who knows.

Extropy is less about order and more about containing disorder.

We already are (or KIND OF are...different political discussion) trusting in extropy as a concept with going off the gold standard and the current state of trading. HFT algorithms are just another level of meta and power-concentration....

K 3AM laptop death. Will ponder s'more.

 

[r4ch3l]

I would go even further, saying that the Is/Ought Problem renders all ethical theories moot.

Ha. When I tell people I was a philosophy major but don't give any fucks about ethics I get a lot of this: I direct them to Hume.

Yet surely there must be something worth striving for. Land argues to keep the calculative, economic rationality of Utilitarianism while replacing utility with a more sound end: intelligence.

So the is-ought problem says that descriptive and prescriptive statements cannot be linked and should not be confused. Descriptive statements are statements that define and make connections between data. Data is not in and of itself objective or accurate or useful in predicting future events. Intelligence could be measured by ranking the quality of data and means of interpreting it; data is intelligent and valuable if it is able to predict the future and determine probabilities with a high success rate. Harder to predict (volatility?) x higher success rate = intelligence = value.

--------------------

[Can someone who understands Bitcoin intricately jump in and talk about how Bitcoin weights its "value" on a similar premise? My math friends geeked out on it so hard that I always wandered out of the room because I couldn't keep up.]

--------------------

Related: Floridi's papers on informational realism
(& the new information economy)

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12130-010-9096-6#page-1
http://hellahoops.com/zizzi/IR.pdf

A couple of quotes from the first one:

"The digital revolution is updating...our metaphysics, from a materialist one, in which physical objects and processes play a key role, to an informational one. Objects and processes are increasingly seen as de-physicalised, in the sense that they tend to be treated as support-independent (consider a music file)...P2P does not mean Pirate to Pirate but Platonist to Platonist, for it is the immaterial nature of things that underpins the phenomenon."

Until recently, the majority of the working population would spend most of their time manipulating physical objects. However, as a result of the digital revolution, an ever increasing percentage of people spend all their time either creating, distributing, or otherwise manipulating information. It is a curious fact that the higher the percentage of the work force who are exclusively occupied with information, the more material goods are produced. This new situation suggests strongly that pieces of information should be regarded as at least as real as physical objects, even though information is something intangible. Floridi defends the view that information should be regarded as real as follows: "the criterion for existence...is no longer being potentially subject to perception...but being potentially subject to interaction, even if intangible."

It is interesting to note that Plato defended the existence of the Forms by using a similar criterion, namely that power is a mark of the real, or as he puts it in The Sophist: "I am proposing as a mark to distinguish real things, that they are nothing but power." So if information exerts power over human beings, as it undoubtably does, it should be regarded as real.

Hmmm. Could make parallels between the Forms (or at least the idea of a tendency toward keeping a mean between extremes) and Pareto equilibrium as a natural tendency observed in nature, in math, and in markets...

 

[Analyzer]

I would go even further, saying that the Is/Ought Problem renders all ethical theories moot.

How about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_ethics

The process of discourse which is the stem of establishing ideas and positions with others, uses presuppositions that imply oughts.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Zizek

Bromance candidate #2...

Yep. The ability to accumulate and effectively filter data is becoming the new currency. But it's going to get all tangled and messy because it's so interwoven with government; tech peeps at the top of the big data food chain no doubt enjoy the political/social power they have and obviously governments/politics has been the driving force in most advanced technology in the first place. My hypothesis is that if shit goes really crazy there will be a tendency toward corporations becoming more "family"-like; to have security you become a part of a community that offers protection and money/goods in exchange for work. Then disillusion after the fear for security and...who knows.

I'd call the "family-like" thing a good thing, ultimately. But re-reading that paragraph... an information-based economy is based on the assumed need of information. The thing screams "bubble!" if for nothing more than a lack of people needing to be told things.

Again, it's a case where something already exists, and formal recognition for purposes of premature manipulation spell disaster.

This also raises the question of whether it's then a valuable asset to distribute disinformation? This is some "height of the struggle" stuff...

The proposed transition from orange-->green-->yellow in spiral dynamics might be relevant here...

We already are (or KIND OF are...different political discussion) trusting in extropy as a concept with going off the gold standard and the current state of trading. HFT algorithms are just another level of meta and power-concentration....

Yesh. http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/te...-algorithms-rule-the-world/article4873869.ece

 

[Black Rose]

What would Qualia optimization be?
Understanding consciousness to manipulate it will require quantum nanotechnology.

http://youtu.be/Mm6Mt9BoZ_M

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

What would Qualia optimization be?
Understanding consciousness to manipulate it will require quantum nanotechnology.

There might be an easier shortcut. Is consciousness bound by attractors? If so, then there might be something to gain by killing a large chunk of it off and allowing it to redistribute.

 

[Black Rose]

There might be an easier shortcut. Is consciousness bound by attractors? If so, then there might be something to gain by killing a large chunk of it off and allowing it to redistribute.

Redistribution world require a catalyst to lead to optimized metabolism.

Diversity of memories and feedback self regulation.

Cells provide structure to the latices. New but stronger structures for the effects? (entanglement cellular automata)

 

[r4ch3l]

What would Qualia optimization be?
Understanding consciousness to manipulate it will require quantum nanotechnology.

http://youtu.be/Mm6Mt9BoZ_M

I am not very familiar with the idea but intuitively skeptical of it. How can you quarantine consciousness to a singular, sentient entity or point of perception? It seems to me that consciousness is connected to time and has interactive and holistic properties...grasping for words here as usual, sorry. To me consciousness is data in a way. We just choose or are capable of capturing some of it. Does the theory you spoke of allow for a way to capture all of it? Cellular automata is more of a theory of the general structure (hardware for information/bio-data) if I am not mistaken?

Maybe this is also why psych meds are so unpredictable.
I'm having drinks with a computational biologist on Friday, gonna bomb the poor guy with a bunch of questions from this thread.

 

[Black Rose]

I am not very familiar with the idea but intuitively skeptical of it. How can you quarantine consciousness to a singular, sentient entity or point of perception? It seems to me that consciousness is connected to time and has interactive and holistic properties...grasping for words here as usual, sorry.

it is holistic but follows the principles of physics as we are united organisms only partially as memetically.

To me consciousness is data in a way. We just choose or are capable of capturing some of it. Does the theory you spoke of allow for a way to capture all of it? Cellular automata is more of a theory of the general structure (hardware for information/bio-data) if I am not mistaken?

The computations do requires software which is the information of the proteins on the microtubules. But these quantum processes can be duplicated I believe with materials that graphene could be used for. Its about the resonance combining the entire system decisions to make processes in adaptation to the environment.

Maybe this is also why psych meds are so unpredictable.
I'm having drinks with a computational biologist on Friday, gonna bomb the poor guy with a bunch of questions from this thread.

I think Stuart Hameroff is intelligible and not a pseudoscience in any respect.

 

[Absurdity]

How about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_ethics

The process of discourse which is the stem of establishing ideas and positions with others, uses presuppositions that imply oughts.

Pragmatism has always appealed to me because of its... pragmatism. However, while I don't know much about Habermas' communicative rationality, I'm skeptical of it. It seems too utopian that separate parties could just "agree" on a rational framework when it is abundantly clear that deliberative bodies, which should serve as laboratories for this concept, are stymied with bickering and factionalism.

It also seems too anthropocentric. Would machinic rationality recognize human presupposed oughts? Or if a fringe group tampered with their genetics and speciated into a posthuman race? Highly speculative, but for the purposes of this thread very relevant.

I'm having drinks with a computational biologist on Friday, gonna bomb the poor guy with a bunch of questions from this thread.

Be sure to report back, soldier.

PS: I lahve Zizek.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Redistribution world require a catalyst to lead to optimized metabolism.

Cells provide structure to the latices. New but stronger structures for the effects? (entanglement cellular automata)

Any metabolism is a gain; optimal is just optimal.

Something tells me that cells aren't as important here. We're probably looking at a far smaller keystone structure. People essentially share the same cellular (and even genetic) structures and components, yet have wildly varying IQs... (I mean ffs, you just spit out "entanglement cellular automata" ).

Smaller...

 

[Black Rose]

Any metabolism is a gain; optimal is just optimal.

Something tells me that cells aren't as important here. We're probably looking at a far smaller keystone structure. People essentially share the same cellular (and even genetic) structures and components, yet have wildly varying IQs... (I mean ffs, you just spit out "entanglement cellular automata" ).

Smaller...

what is a "keystone structure" if whats smaller than a nanotube that retains coherency and decoherance? microtubules are what currently processes the quantum effects. Also the macro structures of the brain and body I suspect will remain the same size even if the interior is changed.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

what is a "keystone structure" if whats smaller than a nanotube that retains coherency and decoherance? microtubules are what currently processes the quantum effects. Also the macro structures of the brain and body I suspect will remain the same size even if the interior is changed.

The smallest of the small, assuming no infinite regress along that particular axis.

Relative macro structure size could increase or decrease with no difference in effect.

Of potential interest:

1. http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2013/9593.html

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_pseudo-telepathy

How does ^that work?

 

[~~~]

So what happens if you become Laplace's demon; then what?

 

[Nezaros]

So what happens if you become Laplace's demon; then what?

That would require, I imagine, an infinite quantity of processing power. It may work for a smaller isolated system but there is no known way to perfectly observe without affecting the system.

 

[~~~]

^Wouldn't you overcome this issue if your knowledge was approaching that of Laplace's demon?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

So what happens if you become Laplace's demon; then what?

We already are, we just can't comprehend it.

That would require, I imagine, an infinite quantity of processing power. It may work for a smaller isolated system but there is no known way to perfectly observe without affecting the system.

^Wouldn't you overcome this issue if your knowledge was approaching that of Laplace's demon?

Or are we? Would infinite regress allow one to comprehend a single complete unit of the repetitive fractal? Still limited though. How deep does it go?

 

[r4ch3l]

Be sure to report back, soldier.

We talked about so much random philosophy-science shit that I didn't care about/couldn't sneak in stealth specific interrogation questions.

Then homeboy brought up MBTI on his own and I pretended I didn't know what it was to see his read on me. Then we bonded about INTP-ness. Weird. Never met a for-prolly-sure INTP before. Maybe he's lurkin'. [hai dude]

 

[Nezaros]

This certainly addresses the problems inherent in both hedonism and nihilism. I'm just wondering what the eventual end is supposed to be. Do we simply continue to expand technology until infinity?

 

[Sorlaize]

Land: "pretty much anything to the left of Skynet fails to reach it."

Sounds pretty unreasonable, crazy...even dangerous. But is this not the political economy of the Singularity? Are we not already (unwittingly) walking down this road of optimizing for intelligence?

Jesus Christ, this is like the dark ages compared to my philosophy.

Academics repeatedly start all over again from where most people in life are today. as a result they never get anywhere. It's like they're in constant denial they aren't making sense to anyone.


Controversial today yes, but optimizing for intelligence doesn't necessarily have anything to do with having a poor quality of life. It depends so much on the fundamentals of human existence -- and this is why tons and TONS of modern writing fails so miserably at addressing anything in the modern world practically. Most people have no clue what the world really is.

It's not a complex piece of academic philosophy. If you can demonstrate to people that treating the planet well stops them exchanging very-fun times now for the extinction of the species, they will cooperate, unless of course there's too many people that think they have inalienable rights according to an arbitrary living situation which they can't have for another 30 years anyway. That's when John P Holdren's under-skin contraception and similar thinking comes in. It's a natural progression from the previous scenario. Entropy in action. "You cannot stop an idea whose time has come" ~ Victor Hugo

Optimizing isn't what corporations have done in places, but generally as a misunderstanding this is assumed to fundamentally be what they are doing, operationally at least, "in a free market". However on deeper inspection capitalism fundamentally inhibits progression/optimization of society in many places, because people are brainwashed with money -- simple things like driving to the store to spend a $3 voucher. That is not what a smart species does, but it helps the rich human beings in this world stay rich. Things like this, academics LITERALLY CAN'T TOUCH because 1) their institutions are funded by the rich (same for politics) and 2) modern science/academics is dead scared of anything not proven in hard data (that Einstein quote)

Talking about far-future is useless if you don't understand the basics of the modern world .. which we don't, by design of modern global society.

These are far-future issues, or at least should be.

Intelligence is abstract, what *appears to* happen in evolution with our frame of reference is things replace other things on a linear scale which is a simplified view but it illustrates something at least. So human lifestyles, the human form is just another image in the sands of time. With that in mind we would then ask "why continue this in particular behaviour?" .. and, in the magical land where climate change and the New World Order don't exist where tech magazines and the mainstream media flaunt these issues for a few seconds, this may not be a burning question. But in reality it is. Or rather it becomes important.. Nazi Germany didn't create evil out of thin air. It preyed on existing weaknesses in the mind, which we will see surface again today because, newsflash, human nature hasn't changed fundamentally since then.

Because, back in reality we are fast grinding down the biosphere into nothing with increasing carbon percentile in the air we breathe. Guy Mcpherson and so on, he's a climate scientist not an economist and everything else. Even the Pentagon are just a room full of specialists, all human beings with partners and homes to go back to at the end of the day. They don't know half as much about the world as they should, to make all-around smart decisions factoring in complex webs of influence.

If we HAD lived a little like primordial people, had "gone back", we wouldn't be faced with these issues just yet, for some few million years. So, all this (the Moldbug reference) can be seen as a flaw of human intelligence as a biological design. Well, causation goes right back to the big bang if you want to ask about this particular universe.

The true difficult philosophical questions now are about what humanity is going to do in a world where mass media and government have been intentionally stifling dissemination of climate change; where nobody knows quite what will happen next (fundamentally bad for forming plans, if you want them to work); what the future of humanity is going to be. Earth is so immensely a "fine-tuned" environment for human life, and space makes your eyes pop out. There is some very hard thinking needed to be done for the future of humanity in even the next 50 years, but it isn't happening. That's what's worrying.

So, it looks like we'll become an extinct species, only 1000 years into civilizations appearing and only 200 years into industrialization. The blink of an eye on the scale of how old the universe is. Not even one second out of a minute.

 

[Sorlaize]

Redistribution world require a catalyst to lead to optimized metabolism.

Diversity of memories and feedback self regulation.

Cells provide structure to the latices. New but stronger structures for the effects? (entanglement cellular automata)

All this is predicated/founded on the idea "we need all this". Give computers intelligence without the inherent borders of the human mind-identity construct, and they'd eventually come up with the realization nothing has an inalienable rationale/reason to exist at all. So general intelligence is actually the endgame of all existence. Only the observer (e.g. human) ever requires certain things of what he sees and does.

Above and beyond that, if anything is possible which it is in this universe, then eventually it gets smart enough to realize the ultimate truths of all existence. Which is an interesting question which brings us back around to God and how we formed the idea. (Make a The Matrix type world for fun? Not if you're intelligent enough to make it.)

It's like the human idea of a human watching a screen in the brain behind the eyes. We are far too conditioned in this particular environment to think beyond it -- we imagine there must be an intention behind the universe, or the multiverse. What created everything that created? Like the chicken and the egg. An impossible question because the question is stupid! its frame of reference is too narrow, it ignores important information.

 

[Black Rose]

All this is predicated/founded on the idea "we need all this". Give computers intelligence without the inherent borders of the human mind-identity construct, and they'd eventually come up with the realization nothing has an inalienable rationale/reason to exist at all. So general intelligence is actually the endgame of all existence. Only the observer (e.g. human) ever requires certain things of what he sees and does.

Rationality is limiting in itself. Intelligence devoid of consciousness would have no purpose. What limits humans is what I intend to push beyond but what is it that this beyond human will comprise of must have empathy and seek others like it. Otherwise it would become insane. It seeks the unity of all sapience.

Above and beyond that, if anything is possible which it is in this universe, then eventually it gets smart enough to realize the ultimate truths of all existence. Which is an interesting question which brings us back around to God and how we formed the idea. (Make a The Matrix type world for fun? Not if you're intelligent enough to make it.)

Possibly but this is not what I think the future eminence has for this world, that we are to remain in delusion. Looking into what is the continuum of the infinitely big to the smallest infinitesimal the branches would bring forth omni-awareness would seek to eliminate what it rejects as subversive just as we relinquish mental states not benefiting us personally and collectively.

It's like the human idea of a human watching a screen in the brain behind the eyes. We are far too conditioned in this particular environment to think beyond it -- we imagine there must be an intention behind the universe, or the multiverse. What created everything that created? Like the chicken and the egg. An impossible question because the question is stupid! its frame of reference is too narrow, it ignores important information.

I believe that what is currently sought will not be applied to self denial. And if we have no scope for producing quantum realms unlimited to classical logic now it will happen in the future by accelerating our own understanding.

 

[Absurdity]

"A new Equation for Intelligence F = T ∇ Sτ - a Force that Maximises the Future Freedom of Action"

Still digesting, but pretty mind-blowing.

 

[TimeAsylums]

"A new Equation for Intelligence F = T ∇ Sτ - a Force that Maximises the Future Freedom of Action"

Still digesting, but pretty mind-blowing.

outtake

What it says is that intelligence is a directed force F that pulls into the direction of states with more freedom of action. T is a kind of temperature, that defines the overall strength (available resources) the intelligent system has (heat can do work, think of a steam engine: the more heat the more power). Sτ is the "freedom of action" of each state that can be reached by the intelligence within a time horizon

In order to estimate the quality (in terms of actability) of future states, the system needs a model of the world.

Let's consider an example: a cat is hunting a mouse. Instead of wasting a lot of energy running after the mouse, the cat sits still, and observes the mouse. It follows its movements and makes a prediction when there is a good moment to catch the mouse. This is a very good use of resources.

How to increase the force of intelligence?
There are tow ways to increase to force of intelligence:

Make better predictions of the future, which means detect sates of maximum freedom of action
Increase the power to move in the desired direction. By adding more energy or being clever in finding paths that require less resources.

Please explain what was so "mind-blowing" about it. There was nothing new or surprising there.

 

[Absurdity]

Please explain what was so "mind-blowing" about it. There was nothing new or surprising there.

I have to convince you why I found it cool? Not interested.

 

[TimeAsylums]

I have to convince you why I found it cool? Not interested.

Not "cool," but "mind-blowing."

I'm interested in what specifically you found that intense about it.

 

[Base groove]

Not "cool," but "mind-blowing."

I'm interested in what specifically you found that intense about it.

Probably Te dude.

The fact that it can be quantified according to a universal formula has a certain ... appeal... to TJs. You know this.

Next is to test whether it works or not. If it produces unfavorable results or infinities, then it is scrap metal.

 

[TimeAsylums]

The fact that it can be quantified according to a universal formula has a certain appeal

That was my assumption, but I wanted it verified. Also, "maximum number of options as an output," isn't anything new, nor is the cat thinking about the mouse instead of brute force.

 

[Absurdity]

Go be a totally meta hipster somewhere else

 

[TimeAsylums]

Anyway,

It is very helpful for planning...anything. (Optimizing for intelligence)

Model the system, in doing this you have a good base for understanding the system, and can possibly determine future outcomes with a better probability, then you can determine your plan of action with your resources, and attempt to make the *best* choice (maximize future outcome)

except, that already has a name, and it's called

Systems Analysis
also System Analysis

"an explicit formal inquiry carried out to help someone (referred to as the decision maker) identify a better course of action and make a better decision than he might otherwise have made."

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

"A new Equation for Intelligence F = T ∇ Sτ - a Force that Maximises the Future Freedom of Action"

Still digesting, but pretty mind-blowing.

Is there a paradox in this? If I'm an intelligent system and I make future predictions then act in a way to maximize freedom to act, isn't the action I take today limiting my freedom to act in the future? My action or decision by definition closes off avenues I didn't take. I'm sure I'm missing something here...

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Is there a paradox in this?

*ninja's Absurdity *

Yes, the formula limits the current repertoire of actions and is a bit biased towards that whole "you should stop existing now" thing... unless one exists on multiple timelines...

The other aspect of reciprocal causality is that in a closed system, every action you take will lead to some opportunity for future action because within the system as a whole the action potential doesn't go anywhere. *entertains images of perpetual ripples in water and truisms like "what goes around comes around"* (Note that the definition of "you" will be different in the future, i.e. when you're dead your component parts still exist).

 

[TimeAsylums]

Is there a paradox in this? If I'm an intelligent system and I make future predictions then act in a way to maximize freedom to act, isn't the action I take today limiting my freedom to act in the future? My action or decision by definition closes off avenues I didn't take. I'm sure I'm missing something here...

It's about determining the "best" course of action.

Alternatively, if you want to take *no* course of action and leave every option open ever...then you fail to take action.

Maximize the outcome/output with limited(minimal) input. [optimize]

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

*ninja's Absurdity *

Yes, the formula limits the current repertoire of actions and is a bit biased towards that whole "you should stop existing now" thing... unless one exists on multiple timelines...

The other aspect of reciprocal causality is that in a closed system, every action you take will lead to some opportunity for future action because within the system as a whole the action potential doesn't go anywhere. *entertains images of perpetual ripples in water and truisms like "what goes around comes around"* (Note that the definition of "you" will be different in the future, i.e. when you're dead your component parts still exist).

So if I'm a droplet of rain water wherein I merge and create ripples in a closed system (lake), my action creates a chain reaction to the whole of the lake but goes nowhere since it's closed. My action on the closed system in turn changes me even when I cease to be able to take action (death). Is that what you're saying?

 

[Black Rose]

The connectome is a universal convergence on intelligence.

http://youtu.be/nHTTVFDjQ1Q

A landscape of attractors allows quick response to novel insights.

http://youtu.be/grsFHvMvjBw